Why are the newer screens resolutions not 1050 x 1680 but smaller...

I have an older z70VA Asus which is 15.4" which has a resolution of 1050 x 1680 and an older HP Pavilion which is 14.1" with a resolution of 768 x 1280.

The resolution of the HP is fine given the smaller screen -- but when I ma seriously working -- I always use the ASUS with the higher resolution because of the greater real estate. I need multiple screens open all the time and need to have the room to put them side by side -- some times 2 rows worth. I just can't do that with the HP though it is serviceable enough for other needs.

I am planning to replace both laptops this spring -- they are both 4 years old and showing the signs of age.

I need matte and I've decide to replace the ASUS with a 15.6" screen. I am waiting for the new laptops that were built explicitly for WIn 7 and not for Vista with upgrades to Win 7.

I am psyched by all the new technology -- but I have been disappointed re: resolution of the screens. E.g. someone posted a link to a new ASUS which really appeals -- I am also waiting for new reviews.

N61Jv

And I scroll down and I see this for display:

I haven't been staying too abreast of the technology recently -- I am building up my knowledge of current events.

But I was wondering if anyone can enlighten me about this reversion to 1366x768 for the larger screens.

 

That resolution is classified as an HD display, so they're using it in computers. It's the same display used in cheap HDTV's, so it's cheaper for manufacturers to use it. There are some 15.6" machines like the Envy, and I believe the XPS16 that have higher-resolution displays, but those cost a premium.

 

Thnaks for the explanation. The XP16 is a year old model. Does this mean getting the 1050x 1680 is out of the question now for the new 15"4 - 16" screens?

 

the new lenovo t510 has a matte 15.6 screen in 1600x900
the new lenovo w510 has a matte 15.6 screen in 1600x900 or 1920x1080

 

You're listing resolutions backwards. You always put the horizontal resolution first. But yes, there are a lot fewer of those laptops out there... laptops are moving from the 16:10 aspect to the 16:9 aspect that TVs have, I'd wager to say so the manufacturers can save money because it's cheaper to just make 16:9 LCD's instead of two different types.

 

if you hurry you may be able to get a HP 8530p which has a 1680x1050 screen, I got one a month and a half just so I could get the 1680x1050 screens. they are matte screens and 15.4inch.

 

I am, too, longing the times of yore and 1680x1050 laptop displays. You can find an MSI laptop with such display and i7 quad core processor. If not MSI, as the previous poster said, you can buy a laptop with 1600x900 resolution. I am afraid the fonts on 1920x1080 will be too small.

 

Ehhh. I like mine. If nothing else, it'll encourage app developers to deal properly with DPI.

 

Yes you are correct -- years and years ago they listed it the opposite way and I never got out of the habit.

Actually I am fine with a 16:9 aspect ratio -- in fact I prefer it. But the resolution of the newer ones seem inadequate.

I will check out the Lenovos that wilse recommended. I don;t want to og to an older model laptop to get the screen I want.

 

You may also want to look at this thread: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=456855

Generally, if you want a screen that's higher resolution than the just about basic 1366 x 768, you'll have to avoid the $1000 or less notebooks.

 

I would get the Studio XPS 16 or Asus G51J or G73... another one would be Sager NP8690... I would get G73... it has a full HD screen but its 17 inch... also has awesome specs for the price... core i7 quad , ATI 5870 which is fastest mobile card... blue ray and 8GB RAM... for $1600... its a rip off.....

 

Thanks for the thread link... interesting discussion re: resolution.

I wasn't look for an under $1000 notebook I was expecting to pay somewhere around $1500 to $2000 or so.

But I still can't seem to find new models with hi res readily. When I am spending that kind of money, I want the latest and highest end of everything. I find that that is the best way to go to get a laptop that will stay quite functional for 4 years or so.

 

HP Envy

 

rip off :
1. A product or service that is overpriced or of poor quality.
3. A theft.
4. An act of exploitation.

Unless you consider it ripping off Asus, lol.

@OP:
You can still pick up 15.6 1920 x 1080 or 15.4 1920 x 1200 screens for business class machines.

 

Pull the resolution down to something cheaper, slap the "HD" label on it, and consumers actually think it is better. That is what is going on.

 

My Inspiron 15 is the cheapest full size laptop dell offers and it has up to 1600x900 resolution, which I have. The Studio 15 has full 1080p as an option and can be well under $1000 even brand new.

 

Cant believe some 16" notebooks are only offered with 1366 x 768

Its absurd. You loose precious vertical space

 

I think what it comes down to is that unless you look at the gamer or business models, the "basic" computers that you'll be looking at otherwise will probably usually come with the lower resolution. If you look for models with Blu-Ray, there's a slightly higher chance that they'll come with a higher resolution, but... it's not a guarantee. And looking for a notebook with Blu-Ray in the first place tends to add a fair bit to the price.

Although, if you're looking for the latest and the highest end of everything, you'll probably be wanting to look at a gaming notebook anyway, so at that point, the resolution options should open up. Unless you're just looking to buy the pre-configured models at a place like Best Buy or MicroCenter, in which case they'll often sub in a lower resolution monitor to reduce the price.

Generally, if you want a model with higher resolutions, you'll probably end up ordering online.

 

Well I do expect to order online and I was going to look for Bluray Laptops with an external monitor is the only way I have to watch movies. It will be a while before I by a home theater (like at least 6 months if not longer.)

But the ones I've looked at so far have not had glowing reorts.

BTW here is a query I posted on the "protest 16:9 screens" thrad -- but I figure I might get a better response here:

 

It's a great pity that the WSXGA screens are so hard to find on 15" ish laptops. That's why I moved up to 17" WUXGA. 1920 x 1200 gives loads of work area and the machine isn't much larger than a 15" one. I think Dell and Lenovo do matt versions.

And you could get an external monitor that rotates through 90 degrees for long documents.

Video playback software usually lets you change the aspect ratio, but sometimes it doesn't select the correct ratio automatically.

 

What exactly is your query? The real reason why notebook companies are pushing 16:9 with standard resolution displays is because the LCD manufactures sell them cheaper: they have less area than 16:10 and are already been produced for HDTVs (although I don't see people buying 14" HDTVs ). Nevertheless, the notebook companies are not going to say this: they will try to sell this by saying it is "optimized" to see videos and blablabla. That is, they will tell you that they are shifting not to cut costs but to "make your life better"... In fact, the change from 16:10 to 16:9 will marginally affect any possible distortion in movies and the "big improvement" regarding it will be just the decrease of the black top/bottom bars. If you think this is an improvement and don't care about the lost of vertical space, go for it!

 

Your query's already been answered pretty well by everyone else; the thing is that 16:9 supposedly accomodates all the different aspect ratios used by movies and DVDs better, but the problem is exactly that; not all of those movies and DVDs actually use 16:9, which is why you need to check that "keep aspect ratio" box, and suffer with the black bars. XD

In the end, you may just wish to post in the "What notebook should I buy" subforum, and see what you get as suggestions. I'm going to post a few random ones I've found here that might suit you.

Sager NP7652 (1600x900 available)
Sager NP8690 (1600x900; 1920x1080)
MSI GX640-098US (16:10 1680x1050)
Force 1656 (16:10 1680x1050)
Asus G51JX-A1 (1920x1080)

I'm not as up on the Dell and HP models... partly because I favor 17", not flashy, and high powered (so with Dell and HP, I'm looking at their business class workstations).

 

Well I am embarrassed to say that I am not sure I always checked off the box "keep aspect ratio" because I don't think I understood what it was referring to. Hence I didn't always get the black bars and also hence got the distortion. I have no problem with black bars -- have been
"using them" probably before a number of you were even born when "letter boxing" was first struggling to overcome pan & scan of theatrical movies in order to get the full screen presentation of the movie. It used to be hard to get VHS tapes with letterbox.

I understood however, everyone's argument that the method of marketing a lower resolution 16:9 screen as a tech advance when it really was a way of cheapening the product.

(Corn-fed beef -- highly-touted in the post-World War II era was the same phenomenon. It was promoted by the cattle industry as a superior product to grass-fed beef when really corn feed was significantly cheaper than grass pastures. And now it has proven to be extremely unhealthy - contributing to cholesterol build-up, heart-disease and is a major -- though not the only -- contributor to the massive weight gain in the US population in the period from 1970 t0 2000,)

Thanks for the suggestions. I struggled with 15" v 17" but I travel a lot for long distances in my profession, sometime halfway around the world and I need a screen that the person in front of me won't lower his seat back to smash my computer. The 15" widescreens just barely make it. Also it is a trade-of between size of screen and weight to carry.

But now that I know about keeping the screen aspect ratio -- I join the rest of the gang in protesting the loss of real estate in the 16 x 9 (apart from the loss in resolution that most of those screens have.)

 

Dell Studio XPS 16. You literally can not get a laptop with a nicer display. 16" RGBLED = Freaking SWEET. Even my 15.6" WLED version is awesome. It's an expensive LG panel and is super bright has a very wide viewing angle and colors are sharp at 1920x1080. My sig rig was less than $1500 during the XPS Signature Event.

Also look into Gateway's P series laptops. They are extremely hard to beat price to performance. Take this for example:

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=5270805&CatId=4938

Enough to max ANYTHING out for at least 2 years. In reality the Gateway FX laptops can't be beat when it comes to price/performance.

 

Why don't you get a 14.1" laptop? I would also suggest 13.3", but it may be too small if you use many windows open at the same time. I understand that you prefer matte screens. Take a look in the business line. For example, Thinkpad T410 and the future Dell E6410 (plus, they have 16:10 displays with option of higher resolutions 1440x900 \o/)

 

I will make your search easier:

http://www.dell.com/us/en/business/notebooks/laptop_latitude_e6400/pd.aspx?refid=laptop_latitude_e6400&s=bsd&cs=04
Look the tech specs of this Dell. If you wait some more weeks, you will be able to get the new model E6410, which should keep 16:10.

http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/controller/e/web/LenovoPortal/en_US/catalog.workflow:category.details?current-catalog-id=12F0696583E04D86B9B79B0FEC01C087&current-category-id=24ABE3A59126498186434450AAAFE461
This is the new T410 from Lenovo

You are looking for WXGA+ 1440x900. If you customize your purchase online you have the option of getting it. Both come with matte screen and both cost less than the $2000 you was up to spend.

PS: There are options of 15" if you prefer (mate + high resolution). Look for E6500 (15.4" 16:10) in Dell or T500 (15.4" 16:10) and T510 (15.6" 16:9... unfortunately) in Lenovo.

 

@Cherude - thanks for your help. I plan to get both a 14.1 and a 15" whatever. When I am going to be a way for a long time -- I take my 15.4". For day-to-day, when I am away from my office I bring my 14.1" and make do. I have been thinking about getting a 13.3" this time because it is so much more convenient in terms of weight but I think about the times when I need 2 screens going and the 13.3" may not just do the trick for the second screen.

I was wondering if it were possible to set up a "continuous" screen with one laptop and an external monitor. I have an old Dell 20.5" external monitor which is quite nice. Also whether a 13.3" could manage a 20.5" with a higher resolution. But I am not sure I want something that complicated.

I have been looking at the Lenovo 410 with the switchable Nvidia, SSD and faster processor. But it is rather clunky and heavy for my purpose as my 2nd laptop that is smaller & lighter.